User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

The Sega Article

Before you revert the edits on the Sega Article, present me good arguments why the article was good the way it was before. You still haven't responded to my points responding to your concerns. Talk:Sega#Proposed mass deletion

Talkback

Hello, TheTimesAreAChanging. You have new messages at Talk:Khmer_Rouge#Revert.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A kitten for you!

<3

BowlAndSpoon (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Toasty. With ♥
--BowlAndSpoon (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Richard Nixon and the Southern Strategy

   Who are the credible historians that believe vague "economic factors" were a factor in how the Southern Strategy unfolded? The Republican Party, historically, was the liberal, leftist Party. From it sprang the several "Progressive Parties" throughout history. In opposition were the conservative, individualistic, Confederate "Dixiecrats" (Southern Democrats, not the same as today). From the Dixiecrats, sprang several "States' Rights Parties". It was only after the Southern Strategy – the political realignment, where the Republican Party sought after the conservative, Southern voter base – that the Republican Party moved South, and became the "conservative" Party, and the leftists and liberals moved to the Democratic Party. Historically, Socialists and Communists found refuge in the Republican Party, and segregationists and slave-owners found refuge in the Democratic Party. In modern times, as a result of the Southern Strategy, it's the opposite.

   So please, who are the credible historians that would vaguely blame "economic factors" for the intentional Southern Strategy, especially after Ken Mehlman, Republican National Committee chairman, apologized to the NAACP, for precisely that well-known reason?

^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 22:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Really? "Socialists and communists" preferred Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover to Woodrow Wilson and FDR, and Eisenhower/Nixon to JFK and LBJ? The modern GOP of Nixon and Reagan included "segregationists and slave holders"? I had no idea! (Nixon's "race-baiting" must have been quite subtle indeed, for the President that presided over the first large-scale integration of Southern schools and created affirmative action!) On the larger economic trends contributing to the political realignment in the South, see, for example, The New York Times's "The Myth of 'the Southern Strategy'". Please spare us all the grossly simplistic and patronizing history lessons. The burden is on you to justify removing long-standing sourced material from a Featured Article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Well, you started off completely confused. No, they didn't prefer CC and HH to WW and FDR. LBJ was a tipping point for Conservatives, when he signed the Civil Rights Acts and the Voting Rights Act.

Look up the "Progressive Party"(ies), which kept branching off for decades prior to LBJ. Which Party did they come from? (Answer: Republican) Were they liberals or conservatives? (Answer: Liberal) So they were liberal progressive Republicans? (Answer: Yes.) But read for yourself: Progressive Party (United States, 1912) / Progressive Party (United States, 1924–34). It was later, with the Progressive Party (United States, 1948), that they split from the Democrats.

Which party is conservative, nowadays? (Answer: Republican) Which party is liberal, nowadays? (Answer: Democrat) Political realignment between Republicans and Democrats? Duh.

Finally, Clay must have been unaware of a few things when he wrote that – for example:

1) The RNC chair apologized to the NAACP for the Southern Strategy, a year before; and

2) The Southern Strategy has been outed and proven. Dividing the Democrats (1971) (Memo written by Patrick Buchanan, on behalf of Richard Nixon.)

Maybe you just looked at the title of Clay's article, and the article sounded convenient to what you wanted to believe? ^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 20:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

History is usually more complex than caricature. Nixon conceded the Deep South to Wallace in 1968, and publicly supported the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Moreover, Nixon selected a Vice President—Spiro Agnew—who strongly supported civil rights (and, indeed, had become Governor of Maryland by repudiating the racist message of his Democratic opponent, George Mahoney, who famously campaigned against open-housing laws with the slogan "Your house is your castle!"). Finally, the first Republican President to win the South after Reconstruction was Eisenhower (in 1956, in the wake of the Brown v. Board of Education decision, despite the fact that Eisenhower had appointed the chief justice who wrote that decision), long before any so-called "Southern Strategy" can even be alleged, although Congressional realignment was not complete until the 1990s. Even if Nixon did welcome some unpleasant characters into the GOP (something not convincingly proven by your analysis of primary sources such as a retrospective apology), it's hard to say, what, if any, impact this might have had on the long-term trends. See the main Southern strategy article for an account that rings closer to the truth: "The term 'southern strategy' refers primarily to 'top down' narratives of the political realignment of the south, which suggest that Republican leaders consciously appealed to many white southerners' racial resentments in order to gain their support... This view has been questioned by historians such as Matthew Lassiter, Kevin M. Kruse and Joseph Crespino, who have presented an alternative, 'bottom up' narrative, which Lassiter has called the 'suburban strategy.' This narrative recognizes the centrality of racial backlash to the political realignment of the South, but suggests that this backlash took the form of a defense of de facto segregation in the suburbs, rather than overt resistance to racial integration, and that the story of this backlash is a national, rather than a strictly southern one." I think that answers your initial question.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing the MEK/MKO page please

I don't know what political agenda you have but please stop your repeated vandalization of this page. Me and other users are sick and tired of this. The removed text is not a hoax, please provide your source that it is a hoax. you are damaging the integrity of that article and the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.21.38 (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a consensus on the talk page in favor of removing that section of the article. Please direct further comments there. If you are SupaEditor or another editor not logged in, be advised that sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are serious offenses that can lead to consequences up to and including a permanent ban from Wikipedia. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

3RR warning

This is a warning for you to stop edit warring. If you do not stop, you can be banned.

You've claimed that the section in the People's Mujahedin of Iran page about the US-Iran negotiations is a "hoax". The sources you've provided to support that assertion do not support this. Credible sources say that the account provided in the section you have repeatedly deleted occurred.

You've justified reverting one of my contributions for including the term "neocons". My edit did not contain the term "neocons". It contained the term "neoconservative", which is a formal term in political language to describe a member of the neoconservative political movement.

You've claimed there is "consensus" for removing the US-Iran negotiations section. There is clearly no consensus when multiple users have disagreed, and at least one registered user continues to post in the Talk section disagreeing. SupaEdita (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@SupaEdita: Are you the IPs who keep reverting? Are you guilty of IP socking? --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@BowlAndSpoon: No absolutely not. SupaEdita (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

But why focus on whether prominent neoconservatives have questioned the authenticity of the alleged "Grand Bargain," unless you are using the term as a form of innuendo to scare readers away from their arguments? (Is Glenn Kessler a card-carrying member of the neocon cabal, too?) Similarly, by omitting all detail from its description of the proposal (namely, that the "Grand Bargain" was, in fact, an unsigned, one-page memorandum, not on official diplomatic letterhead, delivered in a roundabout way by the activist Swiss ambassador Tim Guldimann, the day after one of its alleged Iranian co-authors participated in senior-level talks with U.S. officials) the first paragraph by default misleads by omission—creating an initial impression on the reader's part that the proposal was real and serious—why else would Wikipedia be covering it?—and only later devoting a smaller amount of space (through your recent addition of a second paragraph) to the caveats of "some former Bush administration officials" and "at least one prominent neoconservative" (note that Rubin is not identified as such in the source, and it would merely be synthesis to add another, unrelated source for that label). "One registered user" does not upend the consensus of three.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

1. Please stop insinuating that I'm trying to "scare readers away from their arguments". I'm stating they're neoconservatives because it's relevant to their credibility on the issue of Iran. Neoconservatives are widely considered biased on the question of Middle East politics, and more generally, US relations with states that have an adversarial relationship with the US. The reader will decide for themselves whether the fact that they're neoconservatives discredits their contribution. You don't get to decide by censoring information from the reader that you worry might make them react in a way you don't like. SupaEdita (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

2.

" Similarly, by omitting all detail from its description of the proposal ... the first paragraph by default misleads by omission—creating an initial impression on the reader's part that the proposal was real and serious"

If there are details you think should be inserted in the first paragraph, then add them. Deleting the entire section, with a totally unsubstantiated (in the world of objective evidence, not your own mind) claim that it's a "hoax" is faith editing. Please stop abusing the fragile editing process that is Wikipedia. Improve the section. Don't remove it. Prove your arguments, and wait for consensus. Don't try to ram your arguments though with insinuations of me trying to scare readers, claims that the word "neocon" (or even 'neoconservative') should be censored from the article, or misconstruing the consensus driven ethos of Wikipedia to mean the consensus among the majority who agree overriding the disagreement of the minority who disagree.

3.

""One registered user" does not upend the consensus of three."

Please stop with this nonsense. You are free to enter into consensus with two other people. But consensus in the context of what Wikipedia tries to achieve means consensus among ALL participants. 3 vs 1 is not a discussion wide consensus. I'm not trying to 'upend' anything. Again again with the intellectually dishonest charge. Just like your innuendo about me alleging a 'neocon cabal', to slyly defame me. SupaEdita (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@SupaEdita. You edit war against consensus on a single page, and this is the only thing you do in the project. Even if you were right on the content (I do not think so), your edits are going to be reverted and you are going to be blocked if you continue doing the same. My very best wishes (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Not a good idea to use edit summaries to suggest other editors are Nazis.

You've been warned before about personal attacks. You should know better and I'm sure you know the possible consequences. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The editor in question does not hide his Nazi sympathies, but proudly devotes a whole section of his user page to Holocaust denial.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I am following up with the user regarding that userpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. TheTimeAreAChanging, reporting the page would have been a good idea, don't you think? Or even, although not the best idea, mentioning that in your edit summary. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)